5 ms·

If you want to de-polarize America, bring back meaningful federalism. The government in Washington is no longer federal in its character. It has become the nati

If you want to de-polarize America, bring back meaningful federalism. The government in Washington is no longer federal in its character. It has become the national government our founders warned us about. The individual 50 states ought to be doing as much as possible, and the federal government as little as possible. But that's not what we've got. We're a nation of some 330 million people, of diverse religions and ethnicities, geographies and economies. Who in his right mind believes one-size-fits-all solutions should be expanded to include every aspect of life? We need political diversity to go along with the diversity I just described. What that means is that Americans are going to have to get used to leaving one another alone. In other words, New Yorkers are going to have to allow Alabamans to live in their "ignorance," and Mississippians are going to have to allow Californians to live in their "sin." The upside of this political diversity is what some have characterized as "50 laboratories for democracy." Each state will have the benefit to try, and to succeed or fail; and, just as importantly, to see what neighboring states are doing and learn thereof. But I'm arguing that no shuffling of chairs at the national level will do anything to reduce polarization. We need to stay out of one another's business. Good fences make good neighbors.

pjc50 4y ago
That collapsed in the Civil War for well-known reasons. Then a second wave of federal intervention was required during the Great Depression. The problem with allowing states to fail - to become failed states - is not just that it costs a lot of human lives, but that they're bordering the non-failed states.
- falcrist 4y ago
  I would argue that the first major failure was with the Articles of Confederation, which had to be replaced in part because states couldn't even agree to pay soldiers. Everything has to be unanimous. It didn't work. You need a central government.
heavymark 4y ago
A problem with each state doing their own thing, is then the state can take away human rights, and wealthly people can simply move, less privileged people may be unable to. Of course the constitution is suppose to help with that by requiring all states treat everyone equally but of course they couldn't predict everything and states can simply interpret it as they see fit, so the federal government is needed, but how much is anyones guess. I don't see that de-polarizing america, rather just would be more silencing those in the minority of each state.
- sampo 4y ago
  > A problem with each state doing their own thing, is then the state can take away human rights (1) Why would the state residents vote for a state legislature that takes away human rights from them? (2) And if this is seen as a real danger, can it not happen as well on the federal level then? The whole US of A voters voting for representatives that take away human rights on the federal level.
  - barryp 4y ago
    > (1) Why would the state residents vote for a state legislature that takes away human rights from them? A lot of voters wouldn't have a problem if they're going to take rights away from those "other people" they don't like.
  - pjc50 4y ago
    Many important rights were never voted in at all. Interracial marriage was legalized not by electorates but by the Supreme Court. Desegregation of education had to be imposed on several states by federal troops. At the federal level, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th... is an example of a right that has never yet been implemented, partly because some states insisted on retaining the death penalty for children.
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    1) Hard to say why, but they do. It maybe comes down to "politics over policy". 2) This also happens, but it's a bit harder because you need a wider variety of people to agree, and federal-level politics get a lot more visibility in the news. Consider that referenda are generally uncommon and that you have to vote for a whole politician, not individual policies.
ThinkingGuy 4y ago
Realistically it'll never happen, but I believe a good start might be repealing the 17th Amendment. There were probably good reasons to have senators directly elected by the people (instead of appointed by state legislatures), but it's had the effect of reducing the representation of the individual state governments, which causes a lot of resentment over "one-size-fits-all" solutions, including unfunded mandates (where the federal government requires a state to enforce some law or regulation, but provides no funds to pay for it).
yucky 4y ago
Most polarization comes from identity politics, since by definition it forces us into tribes. Which means then there are "good" tribes and "bad" tribes and tribes are or aren't aligned with. So we need to call out identity politics for what it is (and yes, the right is guilty of identity politics too) if we ever hope to beat back all of this hatred its causing. If we really want to destroy the divisiveness we should eliminate political parties in general. There is no requirement for government to provide any support for political party primaries/caucuses or to even mention party on ballots in the elections.
- cloverich 4y ago
  Would ranked choice voting help with this very problem? As of now there can be no third party because it is too easily marginalized.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Well no, that is lipstick on a pig. The parties are the problem, rather than trying to artificially prop up 3rd parties, we need too eliminate them entirely. People should vote for politicians individually based on issues, not gang colors.
  - thompenn 4y ago
    Yes.
wycy 4y ago
A major problem with that is that our political divisions aren't actually at the state level. States may be "red states" or "blue states" by their overall majorities, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Rural Massachusetts is politically more in line with rural Illinois. Similarly, urban Chicago is politically more in line with urban Boston.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > A major problem with that is that our political divisions aren't actually at the state level. You may need to go down further to the county level. Specifically looking at voter density: * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-density-of-your-county-affects-how-you-vote https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-d... * https://archive.ph/fEJEa https://archive.ph/fEJEa Not perfect of course: * https://observablehq.com/@jake-low/how-well-does-population-density-predict-u-s-voting-outcome https://observablehq.com/@jake-low/how-well-does-population-... True in Canada as well: * https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-rural-divide-right-along-party-lines/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-...
tmaly 4y ago
There were changes like the introduction of the 16th and 17th amendment as well as an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause that greatly contributed to a national government. I cannot see things going back to meaningful federalism without some very difficult choices.
bradlys 4y ago
lol wut. You’re advocating for states rights and acknowledging that people in Mississippi would vote for Jim Crow to come back if it wasn’t for that pesky federal government. What kind of argument is this (a well known ultra conservative talking point) and why is it at top of the thread? HN goes a bit too far socially conservative with its libertarianism sometimes. Y’all are just conservative at that point - not libertarian.

pjc50 4y ago

That collapsed in the Civil War for well-known reasons. Then a second wave of federal intervention was required during the Great Depression. The problem with allowing states to fail - to become failed states - is not just that it costs a lot of human lives, but that they're bordering the non-failed states.

falcrist 4y ago
I would argue that the first major failure was with the Articles of Confederation, which had to be replaced in part because states couldn't even agree to pay soldiers. Everything has to be unanimous. It didn't work. You need a central government.

heavymark 4y ago

A problem with each state doing their own thing, is then the state can take away human rights, and wealthly people can simply move, less privileged people may be unable to. Of course the constitution is suppose to help with that by requiring all states treat everyone equally but of course they couldn't predict everything and states can simply interpret it as they see fit, so the federal government is needed, but how much is anyones guess. I don't see that de-polarizing america, rather just would be more silencing those in the minority of each state.

sampo 4y ago
> A problem with each state doing their own thing, is then the state can take away human rights (1) Why would the state residents vote for a state legislature that takes away human rights from them? (2) And if this is seen as a real danger, can it not happen as well on the federal level then? The whole US of A voters voting for representatives that take away human rights on the federal level.
- barryp 4y ago
  > (1) Why would the state residents vote for a state legislature that takes away human rights from them? A lot of voters wouldn't have a problem if they're going to take rights away from those "other people" they don't like.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Many important rights were never voted in at all. Interracial marriage was legalized not by electorates but by the Supreme Court. Desegregation of education had to be imposed on several states by federal troops. At the federal level, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th... is an example of a right that has never yet been implemented, partly because some states insisted on retaining the death penalty for children.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  1) Hard to say why, but they do. It maybe comes down to "politics over policy". 2) This also happens, but it's a bit harder because you need a wider variety of people to agree, and federal-level politics get a lot more visibility in the news. Consider that referenda are generally uncommon and that you have to vote for a whole politician, not individual policies.

ThinkingGuy 4y ago

Realistically it'll never happen, but I believe a good start might be repealing the 17th Amendment. There were probably good reasons to have senators directly elected by the people (instead of appointed by state legislatures), but it's had the effect of reducing the representation of the individual state governments, which causes a lot of resentment over "one-size-fits-all" solutions, including unfunded mandates (where the federal government requires a state to enforce some law or regulation, but provides no funds to pay for it).

yucky 4y ago

Most polarization comes from identity politics, since by definition it forces us into tribes. Which means then there are "good" tribes and "bad" tribes and tribes are or aren't aligned with. So we need to call out identity politics for what it is (and yes, the right is guilty of identity politics too) if we ever hope to beat back all of this hatred its causing. If we really want to destroy the divisiveness we should eliminate political parties in general. There is no requirement for government to provide any support for political party primaries/caucuses or to even mention party on ballots in the elections.

cloverich 4y ago
Would ranked choice voting help with this very problem? As of now there can be no third party because it is too easily marginalized.
- yucky 4y ago
  Well no, that is lipstick on a pig. The parties are the problem, rather than trying to artificially prop up 3rd parties, we need too eliminate them entirely. People should vote for politicians individually based on issues, not gang colors.
- thompenn 4y ago
  Yes.

wycy 4y ago

A major problem with that is that our political divisions aren't actually at the state level. States may be "red states" or "blue states" by their overall majorities, but it's a lot more complicated than that. Rural Massachusetts is politically more in line with rural Illinois. Similarly, urban Chicago is politically more in line with urban Boston.

throw0101a 4y ago
> A major problem with that is that our political divisions aren't actually at the state level. You may need to go down further to the county level. Specifically looking at voter density: * https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-density-of-your-county-affects-how-you-vote https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-01/how-the-d... * https://archive.ph/fEJEa https://archive.ph/fEJEa Not perfect of course: * https://observablehq.com/@jake-low/how-well-does-population-density-predict-u-s-voting-outcome https://observablehq.com/@jake-low/how-well-does-population-... True in Canada as well: * https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-rural-divide-right-along-party-lines/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/338canada-the-urban-...

tmaly 4y ago

There were changes like the introduction of the 16th and 17th amendment as well as an expanded interpretation of the commerce clause that greatly contributed to a national government. I cannot see things going back to meaningful federalism without some very difficult choices.

bradlys 4y ago

lol wut. You’re advocating for states rights and acknowledging that people in Mississippi would vote for Jim Crow to come back if it wasn’t for that pesky federal government. What kind of argument is this (a well known ultra conservative talking point) and why is it at top of the thread? HN goes a bit too far socially conservative with its libertarianism sometimes. Y’all are just conservative at that point - not libertarian.